Don't let the haters get you down. Just cause they print stuff about you doesnt make it true. I mean what are the odds of somebody with everything going for them like you getting mixed up with stuff like that.

Yeah, that's true, I think we all know that by now. What we don't know is that drug recovery is possible. Despite this fact very few drug addicts all willing go this way. I check in a methadone treatment center to recover from hard addictions, we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. The sports world is well affected by illegal drugs, the best we can do is identify sportsmen who have problems and replace them.

...Well...I do believe these are all accusations (which they are @ this point) that we have all seen/heard during his time here @ Michigan as well as the continued rumblings after he transferred but some team will still be enamored with his size/arm and in this weak QB draft he shouldnt last past the 3rd round.

Tons of baggage including actually quitting the damn team and he still went in the 4th round and produced. Of course Gerg was his head coach for 2 years, so I guess no one can blame him for going insane.

Not to mention Mallet can be secure in knowing that the Bengals will take him in the 1st or 2nd round.

"this makes all of the questionable things tied to Newton look like childsplay"

I can't agree witht his statement. Newton has been accused of being involved in a "pay to play" scheme. This speaks to the kid's character. He has had issues with the law, and is generally viewed as a "me" player.

Mallett's issues aren't worse or better - they are just different issues and both would raise red flags if I were an NFL coach. Perhaps Cam's would raise less NFL-related flags (and that may be your point), but in terms of character, both raise red flags.

that he has a laundry list of off-field problems for both Newton and Mallett which is why he didn't grade him at 1st or 2nd round. He prefers that other teams take a chance on Newton in the 1st round so they can deal with the off-field problems by themselves and let the better prospects fall to them. As for Mallett, he thinks that he'll be a classic case for player falling in the draft like a rock despite the talent that he possess. He thinks that he's an another JaMarcus Russell.

Mallett's drug problems and lack of leadership problems are just a tip of the iceberg according to him.

A lot of athletes get money/cars/tattoos from boosters. Don't be naive and assume only a few bad apples get benefits. Besides, how exactly would that detract from Newton's ability to play in the NFL? They're planning on paying him a lot of money to play. Maybe he'd be a holdout risk?

Drug addiction, on the other hand, is something NFL teams don't want anything to do with. They know that players are going to get lots of addictive narcotic painkillers as part of treatment for injuries, so intentionally picking a player with a history of addiction seems like a recipe for disaster.

was failing classes before he got kicked out of Florida. He also stole laptops from dorm. It's not just pay for play that is questionable. These have to be considered when evaluating prospects with character issues.

Very true, that stuff slipped my mind. Character definitely matters, it's just hard for me to lump violating NCAA bylaws (pay for play) in with actual crimes like stealing. The NCAA and its member schools don't have any right to play the virtuous organization and uphold amateurism as a standard when they make enormous amounts of revenue from TV and selling #16 jerseys once Denard Robinson comes along.

You're definitely technically correct; cocaine is not physically addictive in the strict sense of the word. However, pyschosomatic things can happen during withdrawal, including but not limited to anxiety attacks, sweating profusely, the shakes, schizophrenic symptoms, irritable bowel syndrome/incontinence, and other stuff. However, unlike, say, alcohol or hard barbituates, the withdrawal won't kill you. I use alcohol as an example only because a lot of people are surprised to learn- I was- that if someone is a chronic alcoholic for a period of years, and quits cold turkey, they are at a pretty significant risk of really serious, life-threatening shit happening to them like stroke or heart attack. And obviously, if you've seen "Trainspotting," which is apparently relatively true-to-life re: heroin withdrawal, that's a good example of something that's physically addictive. And also will make you want to never touch heroin ever. . . As will the scene at near the end in the finale of "The Wire" where the character Dukie Weems is seen for the last time (if you were a fan of that show).

who has consulted on many cases involing drug addicts of every kind I can tell you that it doesn't mean a damn thing that one is physically addictive and one is psychologically addictive. Being addicted to something is being addicted, you can play with words all you like but to the addict, it doesn't matter. Only when that addict attempts to quit whatever it is they abuse does this make any difference whatsoever.

I guess I am just wondering what the heck your point is regarding keeping in mind that one is a physical addiction and one is psychological? Are you insinuating that one is easier to kick or one doesn't impact lives like the other? If that is the case I can say with absolute certainty that you are misinformed.

It affects your performance, behavior in the locker room and can really turn your personal life into a disaster. Right now, he's only making an SEC salary. Think about what he can be exposed to when he's making millions.

C'mon, Leon Lett had to be on something when he goofed on Turkey Day against the Dolphins and in the Super Bowl. My only thing I could say about the Cowboys is that Aikman wasn't chillin' at the White House so that helped keep their offense going strong.

I think drug use is a big deal, but when you're talking about potentially investing 40mil into a single person, you want their nose as clean as possible.

Another thing, too, is although the Cowboys of the early 90's got plenty of media coverage for their misdeeds, I think the media climate has changed significantly since then-- not just the msm. ANY off-field athlete misbehavior is now "news," and gets blasted everywhere. See: Deadspin, Barstoolsports, twitter, facebook, the NFL network, twitter, facebook, the internet (generally), etc.

considering people talked about Reggie Bush's returned Heisman for a whole 2 months and there's absolutely zero ramifications in his impending free agency, nor within his team, i'd disagree with you completely. leadership problems with rumors of a "serious" drug problem, especially with "addicted" being thrown around, are 10x more serious than taking money to play ball would be to a team that pays its players to play ball.

I agree, GB, and I'll go you one further. Almost everyone in the NFL is "all about the money" anyway, and it could be said that Newton already has pro experience, thus giving Newton a "head start" over other potential draftees.

are the NFL owners and general managers who are considering signing him to a contract, to lead their football teams, to be the public face of a franchise worth hundreds of millions of dollars and oh yes pay Mallet himself several million dollars.

Its kind of comical, actually. A kid like Mallett gets black-listed at draft time for allegedly using (and becoming addicted to?) drugs by the assessers of NFL talent. Meanwhile, existing NFL guys like Braylon (and many, many others) get arrested for DUI and get their hearings postponed because they interfere with playoff games. I'm not saying Mallett's stock should not drop, I'm just saying that the hypocracy in the NFL talent assessment is comical.

I guess I missed the part where Ryan Mallett has been "black-listed." Can you provide a link?

My interpretation is that teams are concerned about his drug use and perhaps, rather than using a 1st round pick and committing a hundred million dollars to him, might want to take him with a later pick and commit only tens of million dollars to him.

Also, I'm pretty sure that most jobs would reschedule disciplinary meetings around big events. If you're a company's best salesman and you're about to give a pitch to a potentially huge customer, the company would probably let you give the sales pitch...and then meet with you afterward. And it's rare that an event gets much bigger than a playoff game, which pulls in millions of dollars for the team and the league.

The use of the phrase "black-listed" was utilized as a description of his drop in draft status (from an otherwise 1st rounder to 3rd-4th round). I think that was an obvious assumption to be drawn from my use of the phrase. Maybe not as obvious as I thought . . . For the link supporting the use of the phrase, see the OT.

Again, you mis-interpreted my post. I never once said his "fall from grace" (better for you than use of "black-listed"?) was an inappropriate punishment for Mallett. I'm not so naiive to believe that money does not play into the decision to allow criminal suspects/convicts to play when they should otherwise be penalized. I simply made the point that it was hypocritical for Mallett to lose out on millions due to drop in draft status (justified or otherwise) while existing pros with recent criminal charges/convictions are allowed to participate in playoff games simply for monetary reasons. See the difference? I think the difference is pretty glaring . . .

Maybe you should choose the right word if you want to get your point across. That's what language is for.

It's not hypocritical for existing pros with recent criminal charges/convictions to be allowed to play in playoff games while amateurs suffer from lower draft status. They're completely different situations. One is an established professional whose discipline (or lack thereof) is being handed down by league adminstration. The other is an amateur who is hopeful of entering the NFL, and whose "discipline" is a potential loss of earnings decided upon by individual employers who are looking to hire him or someone like him.

I did not realize that you are such a cunning linguist. Regardless, my use of the phrase "black-listed" was entirely appropriate. From Mirriam-Websters dictionary:

"black-list : a list of persons who are disapproved of or are to be punished or boycotted"

I think it is safely stated that Mallett is being met with disapproval and being punished. No?

With respect to the substance of the discussion, we appear to be focusing on different aspects? Both scenarios entail a serious character issue. However, one scenario is more "acceptable" or at least overlooked while the other is not. In my assessment, secondary factors/considerations like whether an individual is a proven "asset" or not are immaterial. Hypocritical is hypocritical. There will always be excuses to justify softer treatment (first-time offender, important player on team, etc.). Justification simply muddies the water, making it more difficult to identify the hypocricy.

Obviously not. We're talking about punishment for transgressions. I submitted that if Mallett is being punished for his transgressions (rightfully so, in my opinion) then existing players should be held to the same standard. Not doing so is hypocritical, even if its "justified" by the powers that be.

Teams are being consistent in pursuing their self-interests. Suspending or releasing productive players can hurt the team's performance. So can using their first round pick on a player with serious character issues.

Mallett isn't being punished. Teams aren't taking some sort of moral stand on him that they aren't with their own players. They may be downgrading his value as they see more risk that he won't reach his potential. He'll still get a chance to play and will likely get picked right around where a team thinks he's a good value, just like everyone else in the draft.

Do NFL teams take character, drug problems, etc. into consideration when pursuing free agents or resigning players? If they didn't that's what would be hypocritical.

Dude if you fail a drug test when you get hired at a job, you will be fired. From the sound of things Mallet is about to fail his drug test. If you get a DUI, you aren't going to get fired from work or even suspended. So the fact that the NFL will suspend players makes them stricter than normal. Mallet getting drafted at all is much more lenient than i would when applying for a job.

I don't think I saw anyone in this whole conversation suggest that the NFL's practice of hiring or firing people was the model society should adopt. Did someone and I just missed?

The point is whether or not turning a blind eye to (star employees) employees with drug issues could be deemed hypocritical when they cite that as being a major factor in a soon to be employees draft stock falling.

I usually find myslef on the same side as the poster who said it was hypocritical, but in this case I disagree somewhat. I agree that the NFL in many ways is hypocritical but in this case they are looking at a prospect before hiring him and using risky behavior (drug use) as a part of the evaluation. What they are trying to do at this point is determine whether this guy will be a productive emoployee over the term of his contract and that would definitely factor into it.

The reason it is different for current players is because they have already proven their worth. If they have shown that they can play at a certain level while using drugs, that is all their team cares about and therefore they would be given a lot of leeway.

I guess what I am saying is I don't think this is being used as a moral issue. His stock isn't dropping because he uses drugs, it is dropping because he hasn't shown the ability to perform while using drugs over time.

If they teams came out and said "We don't want Ryan Mallet because he uses drugs and we don't condone that" while allowing other players to use drugs and never do anything about it, that would be hypocritical. I don't think that is what is going on here though. They are trying to look into the future and determine whether his drug use will negatively impact his performance over time.

To conclude, no one said society should adopt the NFL's policies on hiring, firing and discipline nor suggest that they should be looked to as some sort of moral compass.

I think teams aren't seeking to "punish" Mallet by picking him lower; I think it is instead that they are concerned that a drug addict will be unable to deal with the pressures and temptations of being a franchise quarterback for an NFL team.

Braylon and other athletes may drink (perfectly legal) and even sometimes abuse alcohol or drive while intoxicated, but those events aren't a red flag to the same degree as someone abusing hard drugs. Now if Braylon was drinking to the point of liver failure, then yes,I think we can both agree that would be an issue raised at contract time.

......and during the first game, he can start telling the coach that he will only take orders from Frank Broyles via Twitter and an invisible razorback hog named "Petrino". Clearly, we can say he is on drugs then.

I definitly saw Mallet out a bunch when I was in undergrad and had the "privledge" of being at a few date parties that he was at as well. I obviously never saw him do drugs or anything like that but the 2 parties i was at with him he was messed up. One time I saw him passed out on a table at a country club.

Sweet Jesus, have some perspective. He was a true freshman thrust into the starting role due to a senior's injury. Of course he was going to struggle. He's been lighting it up at Arkansas for the past two seasons because he was a redshirt sophomore and a redshirt junior in those seasons.